> AFAIK their policy is to block IPs that "obscure individual users". Another commenter quoted:
> > Communities typically block edits from IP addresses that obscure individual users.
> Surely they are aware that this is basically all IPs nowadays...?
> If that's genuinely the policy then it should be almost equivalent to just requiring an account for all edits, so why not just do that?
With the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the lack of progression to IPv6 from many ISPs, we're likely going to see users unable to anonymously edit if they start blocking those behind a CGNAT.
> > Communities typically block edits from IP addresses that obscure individual users.
> Surely they are aware that this is basically all IPs nowadays...?
> If that's genuinely the policy then it should be almost equivalent to just requiring an account for all edits, so why not just do that?
With the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the lack of progression to IPv6 from many ISPs, we're likely going to see users unable to anonymously edit if they start blocking those behind a CGNAT.